SC05-2141 – Roy Mcdonald v. State Of Florida

State: Florida

Docket No: SC05-2141

Case Date: 05/17/2007

Preview:Supreme Court of Florida
____________ No. SC05-2141 ____________ ROY MCDONALD, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. [May 17, 2007] BELL, J. We review the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in McDonald v. State, 912 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), in which it certified conflict on two issues. First, it certified conflict with the decisions of the Second District Court of Appeal in Hall v. State, 837 So. 2d 1179, 1180 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), and Helms v. State, 890 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005), on the issue of whether the mandatory minimum sentence under the Prison Releasee Reoffender (PRR) statute, section 775.082(9) Florida Statutes (2000), must be imposed concurrently with a lesser mandatory minimum sentence under section 775.087, Florida Statutes (2000) (the 10-20-LIFE statute). Second, the Fourth District certified conflict with the

decision of the Third District Court of Appeal in Frazier v. State, 877 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004), on the issue of whether the mandatory sentence for firstdegree robbery with a firearm under the PRR statute is thirty years or life in prison. 1 As we explain, we approve the Fourth District's decision in McDonald. We hold (1) that a mandatory minimum 10-20-LIFE sentence must be imposed concurrently with a PRR sentence even when the 10-20-LIFE sentence is the lesser sentence and (2) that the mandatory sentence for first-degree robbery with a firearm under the PRR statute is life in prison. Accordingly, we disapprove the decisions in Hall and Helms as to the first conflict issue. To the extent it conflicts with McDonald, we disapprove Frazier as to the second conflict issue. 2 FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The background of this case was well summarized by the Fourth District in McDonald as follows: Roy McDonald appeals the denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion which raised five claims of an illegal sentence. We affirm the trial court's denial of all five claims. We write to address two of the claims and sit en banc to recede from a series of prior decisions by this court which the state has shown are

1. We have jurisdiction. See art. V,

Download SC05-2141 – Roy Mcdonald v. State Of Florida.pdf